JSH: Assessing group opinion, survey

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Mathematics Forum » JSH: Assessing group opinion, survey

Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Author

Message

Angus Rodgers

Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:21 pm

Guest

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:53:03 -0800 (PST), amzoti
<amzoti@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Mar 5, 5:31 pm, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas and research I feel is important, so
I am making this post to ask your opinion!

You can answer freely but I will give a few questions that reflect
areas that are of great interest to me, so responses to those question
would be appreciated:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

Sorry, no.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No.

Quote:

No.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

Sorry, I killfiled you ages ago, so I've no idea what this means.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

I think you should do what I do with my own marginal thoughts,
which is to keep them at the back of my mind while I get on
with acquiring enough mainstream knowledge to have a chance of
seeing where my own thoughts fit in. Also the more mainstream
mathematics I know, the more interesting it gets, the more I
see how little I know, the more impatient I get to know more,
and the less marginal I feel. But I still think it's healthy
and important and harmless to have dotty ideas of one's own.

I don't think just shutting up is good for anybody. But you
do post a tremendous amount, to very little point (as far as
I can see - not ever having been interested enough to try to
evaluate it).

Perhaps you should learn more mathematics (there's no "perhaps"
about that bit!), AND carry on thinking about the weird social
conspiracy stuff that so fascinates you. (And post less, yes!)
Maybe as you learn more about one, you'll learn more about the
other. (Sanity tends to transfer from one domain to another, I
think.)

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

Perhaps you seem like a dreadful warning of what any of us
might turn into.* (Goes for me, anyway - but then, I don't
reply to you very often.) On the other hand, who knows, you
might turn into "one of us"! (Not that I feel very much like
part of any "us"!)

*(I get a chill when I stumble into respectable papers by
Alexander Abian.)

Also, you have an insight into the existence of weird and
irrational social processes. It's just that you can't see
the trees for the wood. :-)

And you can be kind of amusing.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

(The next two long paragraphs are pretty skippable; and on a
more careful reading of your question, I think the answer to
it is "yes".)

No, mathematicians are human like anyone else, and will make
more or less well-informed judgements on social and personal
grounds. You presumably know the stories of Ramanujan, Galois
and so on. But I imagine you are suggesting that mathematicians
would deliberately lie about research they know to be valid yet
wish to suppress, for some sinister reason; and frankly I think
that's daft, crazy, laughable! Everything, even mathematics,
has fuzzy edges, controversies, foundational mysteries, and
social/institutional/psychological superstructure. But you
seem to be blind to the fascinating central core of sanity in
mathematics, and obsessed with some exaggerated vision of its
peripheral nuttiness (which it has in common with every human
activity). And you can't bear to face some madness in yourself,
so you explain away people's reactions to you on the basis of
a projection - as if all the madness were in others. People
/are/ pretty crazy - but, sadly, you're "people", too! I don't
know what it takes to enable one to face other people's sanity
and one's own madness. My guess, for what it's worth, is that
there is some core of truth in your perception of other people's
irrationality; and merely being told, "Harris, you're nuts, and
everybody else here is sane" will, quite rightly, not convince
you (of anything except there being a conspiracy against you).

I hope you find some way of recognising that we're /all/ nuts,
and, no longer being blinded by the endless game of projections,
you can start to glimpse more of the interesting maths there is
for all of us to do. But our "psychopathologies" (for want of
a better term) are not all that similar, so I fear I don't have
much of an idea of how you can find your own way through it all
- I'm having a hard enough time finding my own way.

A shorter (and perhaps more useful) answer to the same question
is that I am very confident that anyone who makes the effort to
learn the language and present their ideas with reasonable care
stands a very good chance of being heard, in sci.math (in spite
of the "crank wars"), and elsewhere. I'm not saying it's easy,
but somehow you have to meet the "mathematical community" half-
way - which, so far, you don't seem to be trying to do (I don't
know why, and I think I've already made too many wild guesses).

You carefully included the words "as best they know" - which I
didn't read as carefully! With that qualification, I think the
answer to your question is "yes" (not the "no" I started with).

(I doubt if you will reply to this, and even if you do, I'm
unlikely to see your reply. I probably shouldn't even have
written it; but I'm very interested in what has kept me from
becoming a mathematician, and I can't help being interested
in what keeps others from it, too.)

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

Angus Rodgers

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:08 am

Guest

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 19:33:14 -0800 (PST), Tegiri Nenashi
<TegiriNenashi@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I have two comments to your otherwise pretty nice post.

On Mar 5, 7:21 pm, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Sorry, I killfiled you ages ago, so I've no idea what this means.

Is killfiling someone, and then replying him jumping over the
intermediate poster is kind of impolite?

I think it would only be impolite if I were flaming him.

OK, I suppose it is impolite to seem to be suggesting that you
aren't interested in anything someone might say in reply!

But it's not that; it's that I don't think James has ever replied
to any of my (few) messages to him over the years (maybe some
curt reply, which I've forgotten?), and it didn't seem worth
the bother of taking him out of the killfile for the sake of
reading a reply which I thought was unlikely to come.

Oh all right - you're right! :-)

I've taken him out of my killfile for the time being.

Quote:

(And post less, yes!)

I just ordered "How to quit posting on Usenet in 10 easy steps" from
amazon

I could probably have done with reading that (non-existent?)
book a few years ago, but I'm OK now, really I am - why are
you all looking at me like that? :-)

--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril

Insipid Halogen Name

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:17 am

Guest

"JSH" <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b921ba5-659f-4274-815d-aa958d93fed4@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas

BZZT! You just lost, you blithering imbecile. Please do not spam this group
again.

quasi

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:17 am

Guest

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:31:45 -0800 (PST), JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas and research I feel is important, so
I am making this post to ask your opinion!

You can answer freely but I will give a few questions that reflect
areas that are of great interest to me, so responses to those question
would be appreciated:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

No.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No.

Quote:

If the ideas are important, and are presented in a clear, convincing,
verifiable way, then they _will_ get noticed.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

No -- I usually delete your posts (and all replies) without opening
them. I can't let myself waste valuable time with your nonsense.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

You can do what you want.

Your rants are pathetic, but usenet is true free speech, so of course,
you free to carry on with your lunacy.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

Most people ignore you, but sure, the very fact that many of your
posts are highly provocative induces a fair number of replies --
mostly derogatory.

Some responders, in an honest attempt to be helpful, try to decode
your gibberish, usually with little or no success, and no help from
you. Typically, at some point, they realize the futility and give up.

Others respond with ridicule to your grandiose claims, your blatant
lies, and your trollish insults. It's just human nature.

Moreover, ridiculing idiots is _fun_ for many people. Even more so
when the idiot is a narcissistic, pompous, know-nothing loudmouth.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Yes, but if the research is not presented in a clear, rigorous manner,
using the language of mathematics, there is an automatic tendency to
assume that it's probably nonsense and hence not want to bother with
it.

Reputation and past history is also a major factor. Your many prior
false claims have completely destroyed your credibility.

But for your claim of a fast factoring method, there's a simple
remedy. Just factor a big RSA challenge number. The fact that you
haven't done so (or won't, or can't) serves only to confirm the widely
held presumption that your ideas are worthless.

Quote:

Thank you.

James Harris

A few comments ...

Of course you would love to discover some simple factoring method that
efficiently factors big numbers and which, somehow, everyone else has
missed. It's a fantasy of yours, but probably unachievable, especially
given your level of math knowledge (which appears to be at the level
of elementary algebra and very elementary number theory).

On the other hand, you enjoy being the center of attention, even if
that means being the object of ridicule. In the process, you have
found what is perhaps your one true talent -- you are a reasonably
competent troll. Apparently, your skill at trolling gives you some
satisfaction, and the attention it draws feeds your narcissism.

The fact is, you are not so deluded (yet) as to truly believe your own
claims. You may _hope_ they are valid, but deep down, you know better.
Nevertheless, from your point of view (as a troll), validity is not so
critical -- just as long as the claims can be used as bait, that's
sufficient.

quasi

Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:39 am

On Mar 6, 2:31 am, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas and research I feel is important, so
I am making this post to ask your opinion!

LOL! And you are going to listen to our opinion?

Quote:

You can answer freely but I will give a few questions that reflect
areas that are of great interest to me, so responses to those question
would be appreciated:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

No. In 12 years on usenet you have not given any evidence that you are
able to produce anything new and correct in the field of mathematics.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No, I believe mathematicians are generally very positive about fresh
ideas, also (or especially) from amateurs. Grandiose claims usually do
no good to the impression though; the mathematics should speak for
itself.

Quote:

Probably not.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

No, it's long since I bothered to study the details of your writings.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

I think you should shut up for your own sake, to save yourself from
the embarrassment, but it's up to you. I predict that you will never
make a genuine mathematical discovery or convince the world that your
garbage mathematics is right no matter how long you keep posting at
usenet.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

For laughs. Some make an honest attempt to try to explain the errors
to you, but it usually just makes you hostile, call all mathematicians
liars, until you one day announce that you yourself have worked out
why it's wrong. So it's not very rewarding to try to be pedagogical
(imho).

It's hilarious to assume that the volume of replies alone implies
there's anything of value. It would help if some of all the replies
actually _supported_ your ideas.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Yes, I believe most mathematicians take pride in presenting all
mathematics as correctly as they can.

Quote:

Thank you.

James Harris

---
J K Haugland
http://home.no.net/zamunda

José Carlos Santos

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:56 am

Guest

On 06-03-2008 1:31, JSH wrote:

Quote:

As opposed to...?

Quote:

but I will give a few questions that reflect
areas that are of great interest to me, so responses to those question
would be appreciated:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

No.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No.

Quote:

If it's done in poorly chosen places, yes, although very unlikely.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

Yes and no. Is is very silly to put two distinct questions under the
same item in a survey.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

Post as much as you want. It is funny. Very funny.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

To mock you.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Yes, in general.

Quote:

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Santos

Quote:

James Harris

Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:17 am

On Mar 6, 4:12 pm, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 06:39:46 -0800 (PST), jankri...@hotmail.com wrote:
No. In 12 years on usenet you have not given any evidence that you are
able to produce anything new and correct in the field of mathematics.

Strictly, James has produced both new and correct work here.
Unfortunately, to paraphrase whoever it was first said it, the new
parts are not correct and the correct parts are not new.

I know; I meant new and correct simultaneously. Otherwise I would have
said "new or correct".

Quote:

I will grant that James was not aware that the correct parts, such as
his prime counting algorithm, were not new but that is a result of his
failure to study what has already been done in mathematics. Newton
was right to quote "standing on the shoulders of giants". James is
attempting to build his own giant while ignoring the prefectly usable
one standing next to him.

rossum

Agreed.

---
J K Haugland
http://home.no.net/zamunda

rossum

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:05 am

Guest

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:31:45 -0800 (PST), JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

"brainstorming", which implies putting a lot of ideas into the ring
and then eliminating the bad ones. You react very badly when anyone
criticises even the worst of your ideas. The only corrections you
accept easily are typos, all other corrections to your brainstorming
have to be repeated ad-nauseam to get you to accept them. During this
process you call those trying to correct you "liars" and so forth.

If you want to brainstorm ideas then you need to learn to accept
criticism of those ideas in a far more neutral fachion. If you cannot
disconnect from those ideas (you seem to see attacks on your ideas as
attacks on yourself) then brainstorming is not a good way for you to
proceed.

You also need to work on improving the presentation of your ideas.
They are usually pretty incoherent. For example, for every variable
you should give the range of the variable and what the constraints on
its value are: "beta is a prime number between 2 and sqrt(T)
inclusive".

Quote:

possibilities I have to allow that the value is not exactly zero, but
approaches it asymptotically.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?
No. So far you have not had any ideas that are "valuable". All your

factoring methods so far have been too slow to be valuable. The work
you have done that is correct is not valuable and the work you see as
valuable is not correct. To me the "graet mathematical conspiracy"
you see is a function of your NPD, not something real.

Quote:

far they are too slow. Only fast factoring ideas can be important.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?
Yes. Your presentation of the idea is so confused that I am unable to

extract any useful meaning from it.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?
You are free to post as much as you want. I would advise you to avoid

the non-mathematical rants, they add nothing to the mathematical value
of your posts and do not increase respect for you here.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?
I am usually trying to help. Others I cannot speak for.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?
Yes. Your NPD causes you to overestimate the importance of your

ideas, so you use the idea of a conspiracy to "explain" why those
ideas have so little effect. The real reason they have no effect is
because they are not as important as you think they are.

rossum

Quote:

Thank you.

James Harris

Gonçalo Rodrigues

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:57 am

Guest

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:31:45 -0800 (PST), JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> fed
this fish to the penguins:

Quote:

Extremely unlikely, but hey, good surprises happen.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No.

Quote:

Extremely unlikely, but hey, bad surprises happen.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

No.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

This is an unmoderated newsgroup, you are free to do as you please.

But if you could lay off of the rants and stick to mathematics, it
would be nice. And then again, it would cut the daily supply of
amusement for some people, possibly leading to withdrawal symptoms and
all the nasty consequences they have... tough choice...

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

There are several varieties. Some are genuinely trying to sort out and
help, others reply for the pure unmitigated fun of mockery and
anti-trolling, others, like me, out of sheer boredom and wont of
something better to do in the meantime.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

The question is somewhat misplaced, but yes.

The question is somewhat misplaced because it is not a matter of
trust, but of *understanding* and being able to *rewrite* their
proofs. When a mathematician presents a paper for public consumption,
it can be, in principle, checked by anyone competent in his field.

Regards,
G. Rodrigues

David C. Ullrich

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:25 am

Guest

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 17:31:45 -0800 (PST), JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas and research I feel is important, so
I am making this post to ask your opinion!

This is hilarious. You need to post this "survey" because you
really have no idea whether people think that your "work"
is valuable mathematics? You really haven't noticed that
nobody has ever said you're right about anything, with the
exception of things you've "discovered" that have in fact
been known for decades or in some cases centuries?

Quote:

The word "may" makes that question almost impossible to answer.

A better question would be "Do you believe that my posts over
the years have shown evidence that I have valuable mathematical
ideas?" If you'd asked the question that way then all the replies
would be "no" (except for possible "don't know"s from people
who haven't read your posts or haven't followed the math.)

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

Again, the word "possible" makes this a funny question - of
course when you phrase the question this way the answer is
yes.

But note that the answers to the questions "Do you think it's
at all possible that the Sun will explode tomorrow?",
"Do you think it's at all possible that George Bush is literally
Satan incarnate?", and "Do you think it's at all possible that
pigs can and do fly, they're just careful not to do so when
anyone's watching?" are also _yes_.

Instead you should ask something like "How likely do you
think it is that mathematicians are [etc]?" Then the answers
would be "0.000000000000000000000000001 percent",
just like the answers to those other questions I mention.

Quote:

Same answer as to question 2.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

Yes. What it means to me is that you've finally realized that the
people who've pointed out that you can't actually factor large
numbers efficiently are right, and you're trying to add one more
layer of confusion in a desperate attempt to fool yourself
into thinking you've actually accomplished something worthwhile.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

You should definitely not shut up.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

Because it's so much fun.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Again, a badly worded question. Maybe intentionally badly worded;
like with question 1, you insert the "at all possible" hoping to get a
few "yes" answers, and then in your mental record of the survey
results you get to forget that you included the weasel words, and
fondly think back on the "yes" answers as thought they were people
who actually said they _do_ think you have valuable ideas.

Do I think that _every_ mathematician is trustworthy in this sense?
Of course not - I'm certain some mathematicians are pathological
liars, just as some are felons.

Do I trust the mathematical community as a whole this way? Of course.
There's no point in lying about mathematics, because the truth of the
matter can be _demonstrated_.

Quote:

Thank you.

James Harris

David C. Ullrich

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:39 am

Guest

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:22:50 -0800 (PST), JSH <jstevh@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Thanks for the replies so far. I will not reply to them all.

But I have a reply here. Comments below...

On Mar 5, 7:09 pm, "CarterBanks" <spaml...@nospam.com> wrote:
"JSH" <jst...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4b921ba5-659f-4274-815d-aa958d93fed4@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

I am curious about the effectiveness of the approach I have taken in
communicating mathematical ideas and research I feel is important, so
I am making this post to ask your opinion!

You can answer freely but I will give a few questions that reflect
areas that are of great interest to me, so responses to those question
would be appreciated:

1. Do you believe that I may have valuable mathematical ideas?

yes, extending to larger numbers may be difficult

Ok.

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

Deliberately yes, in the one case where your paper was withdrawn because of
errors, it is their responsibility to prevent substandard technical content
(any paper with errors) from being published. No fraud involved, that is
too time consuming and complicated.

The journal had the paper for nine months and I was in continual
communication by email and told them that I was an amateur researcher.

As a rhetorical question, why would the editors publish a paper from
an admitted amateur that had errors?

Presumanly because they didn't _know_ that the paper had errors.

Which of course is hard to understand, since much of the paper
was not-even-wrong, consisting of things that were not stated
precisely. But the charitable assumption is that when the editors
published the paper they thought it was correct. Nobody but
you has ever suggested otherwise.

Quote:

One of my favorite later emails AFTER publication from one of the
editors in reply to me thinking them for publication noted that
mathematics was important regardless of the source, even if it came
from a janitor.

I'm not a janitor. The cultural reference seemed obvious to me.

So then, if the editors were that all the way in, how does it make
sense to so many of you that the paper was actually flawed?

Erm, the editors screwed up bigtime.

How does it make sense to _you_ to ask us about this,
given that you later _admitted_ that the paper was not
quite right?

Quote:

Isn't a cover-up more likely?

Only in your desperate paranoid imagination.

Quote:

Especially considering that later the
journal DIED?

Oops. A little bit of megalomania showing here. The fact
that the journal died could be due to any number of reasons -
your conclusion that it has something to do with the story
of your paper is unwarranted.

Quote:

And Cameron University removed all mention of it from
their websites so that EMIS had to save 9 years of math papers out of
the goodness of its heart?

Do you really think that one paper had the power to destroy and entire
math journal and 9 years of other papers, because it was wrong?

Of course not! Nobody has ever suggested this.

Quote:

3. Can important ideas in factoring be presented loudly without
anyone around the world noticing or caring, like governments or
security agencies if those factoring ideas could lead to major
breaches in security?

yes, check out early days of PHP. Also there are several free complex multi
level encription/decrytion SW on the internet that no Goveernment can break
anyway. The Gov just want their stuff to stay secure, most of that are very
very large Psudo Random number streams, and have nothing to do with
factoring.

I'm afraid that is the case, which is why I am somewhat paused as I
consider what to do next.

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

yes, but how much does it improve anything in quantitave terms?

[non-answer, full of wishes and hopes and maybes, snipped]

But what if I've followed the rules--like with publication--and it
hasn't mattered?

Is my only hope factoring a large number?

Yes. People have explained this over and over.

You've said that your algorithm _can_ factor large numbers.
Not that it might - it _can_, and the people who say otherwise
are lying, all part of a big conspiracy.

So why _haven't_ you simply factored a large number yet?

(Hint: Because you can't.

Further hint: That's not a secret - everyone _knows_ you can't.
It's obvious to everyone that you're so desperate to have your
genius acknowledged that if you could you would. You
haven't. So you can't.

No, you say you can? Then _do_ so.)

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

Some are really trying to help you. Some attack the whining.

Ok.

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Most do tell the truth, it is an honor, and their truth is in the language
of Math and honorable traceable back to Newton, and before thousands of
years, etc Most are too busy working on hard problems, like you are, and
have no time to spend even thinking of being deceptive.

Thanks for the reply.

I appreciate further feedback from others. I'm unlikely to reply, but
I will try to read them all in this thread, within reason.

James Harris

David C. Ullrich

Jesse F. Hughes

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 9:43 am

Guest

Mensanator <mensanator@aol.com> writes:

Quote:

One of my favorite later emails AFTER publication from one of the
editors in reply to me thinking them for publication noted that
mathematics was important regardless of the source, even if it came
from a janitor.

I'm not a janitor. ¡ZThe cultural reference seemed obvious to me.

19. Is the race card being played here?

I wondered about that too at first, but I don't think so. I think
that James means the editor was referring to "Good Will Hunting" and
thus that the editor believed JSH was as much a prodigy as the guy in
that movie.

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"How can I miss you when you won't go away?"
-- Dan Hicks and his Hot Licks

Mensanator

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:03 am

Guest

On Mar 6, 7:43 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

Quote:

Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> writes:
One of my favorite later emails AFTER publication from one of the
editors in reply to me thinking them for publication noted that
mathematics was important regardless of the source, even if it came
from a janitor.

I'm not a janitor. ¡ZThe cultural reference seemed obvious to me.

19. Is the race card being played here?

I wondered about that too at first, but I don't think so. I think
that James means the editor was referring to "Good Will Hunting" and
thus that the editor believed JSH was as much a prodigy as the guy in
that movie.

I assumed that's what the editor was referring to, but I also
wondered if JSH was referring to cultural bias in IQ testing.

Damn, it's actually a good survey question. What was I thinking?

Quote:

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"How can I miss you when you won't go away?"
-- Dan Hicks and his Hot Licks

Daniel Grubb

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:29 am

Guest

Quote:

No.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

No.

Quote:

No.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

Yes, I've heard of it. No, it doesn't mean anything.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

It makes no difference.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

You are an expert troll.

--Dan Grubb

hagman

Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:44 am

Guest

On 6 Mrz., 02:31, JSH <jst...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

google "infinite monkey theorem"

Quote:

2. Do you believe that it is at all possible that mathematicians are
fraudulently and deliberately blocking those ideas?

Ideas can be ignored by the scientific community (Wegener's
continental
drift theory during its early years comes to my mind) if they appear
only half-baken or lacking substantial proof.
Such thing *may* in theory happen to some extenent in math, but
not with one party never giving any proof of their claims when the
other party easily finds large gaps in the arguments or even
easily chackable counterexamples.

Quote:

It is said that people wanting to talk about certain cryptographically
relevant theorems were pulled out of the auditorium by the NSA.
I'm not sure if this is not a myth, but it seems to indicate that
someone claiming to have found a substantially improved factoring
method
migt not have 10 years of time available to elaborate on that idea
post after post.

Quote:

4. Have you heard me talk of a "z constraint"? Does that mean
anything to you?

No I have not.
And it (the constraint nor whether you have talked of it) does not
mean anything to me.

Quote:

5. Do you think I should just shut-up, or should I post as much as I
want--like anyone else?

You may post as much as you like.
I sometimes find amusement in your posts, though only as long as I
ignore the fact that you might be severely suffering.

Quote:

6. Why do you think so many posters reply to me?

*Sigh* Maybe they try to increase the correct post ratio.

Quote:

7. Do you trust mathematicians of today to tell the truth as best
they know about mathematical ideas and research regardless of the
source?

Definitely.
Mathematicians are very fond of making only correct statements
as far as possible.
And then there is always the possibility to check their proofs of
their claims...

Quote:

Thank you.

James Harris

Page 2 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sun Jul 27, 2008 2:53 am Science Forum Index